Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 27, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 64

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: When halakhic authorities are approached with regard to the dissolution of a vow, they may broach dissolution with a person who took a vow by raising the issue of how taking the vow ultimately degraded the honor of his father and mother, asking him the following: Had you known that your parents would experience public shame due to your lax attitude toward your vow, would you still have taken the vow? But the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and prohibit broaching dissolution of a vow with this particular question.

讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注讚 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讬驻转讞讜 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚讘专 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜

To support the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Tzadok said: Instead of broaching dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother, let them broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of the Omnipresent. They should point out that a vow taken in the name of God lessens the honor of God, so they could ask him: If you had known that your vow would diminish the honor of God, would you have taken your vow? And if so, if this is a valid method of broaching dissolution, there are no vows. Nevertheless, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother, as in this case the extenuation is connected to this particular vow.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞注砖讛 住讜驻专 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 谞注砖讛 住讜驻专 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讗转 讘谞讜 讘拽专讜讘 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, but the Rabbis prohibit it. How might they broach dissolution by asking about a new situation? If one said: It is forbidden to me like an offering [konam] that I will therefore not derive benefit from so-and-so, and that person later became a scribe [sofer], and the one who took the vow now requires his services, or if the one forbidden by the vow was marrying off his son and prepared a feast for all the residents of his town, and the one that had taken the vow said: Had I known that he would become a scribe, or that he would be marrying off his son in the near future, I would not have vowed.

拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜谞注砖讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

The mishna cites another example of a new situation. If one said: Entering this house is konam for me, and that house became a synagogue, and he said: Had I known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed, in this and all such cases Rabbi Eliezer permits the halakhic authority to use this as a basis for the dissolution of the vow, and the Rabbis prohibit it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞讬转专讬谉 讬驻讛

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the statement made by Rabbi Tzadok. What does: If so, there are no vows, mean? Abaye said: It means: If so, vows are not dissolved properly. The one who took the vow might say he regrets doing so only because he is not willing to publicly state that he would have taken his vow despite knowing that it diminishes the honor of God. He may not actually regret having taken the vow, and this will lead to the improper dissolution of the vow.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇讞讻诐

And Rava said: It means: If so, there are no requests for the dissolution of vows to a halakhic authority. Since this type of extenuation applies to all vows, people will therefore assume that their vows are automatically dissolved, and will not take the required steps to dissolve them.

转谞谉 讜诪讜讚讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚讘专 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖驻讜转讞讬诐 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞讬转专讬谉 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞爪祝 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讞爪祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara analyzes the dispute between Abaye and Rava: We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother. Granted, according to Abaye, who said: If so, vows are not dissolved properly, here, since he was impudent toward him by stating a vow that subjects his parent to a prohibition, he was impudent toward him and has demonstrated that he is not concerned for their honor. In such a case, there is no concern that he would pretend to regret his vow due to his parents鈥 honor. This is why the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讛讻讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讜转讞讬谉 讗诪专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 谞讚专讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讛讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讞讻诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻讜转讞讬谉

But according to Rava, who said: If so, there are no requests for dissolution made to a halakhic authority, here, in the case of one whose vow involves his parents, why may they broach dissolution in this way? Why is there not a concern that people will assume that this dissolves all vows automatically? The Gemara answers: The Sages say in response: Since it is not sufficient and applicable for all vows not to request dissolution from a halakhic authority, because the Rabbis maintain that in general, the honor of one鈥檚 parents cannot be used to broach dissolution, here too, they may broach dissolution by invoking the honor of a parent. There is no concern that this may lead one to think that vows are dissolved automatically, as this extenuation applies only to this particular vow.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬转讛 讚谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 诪讻讗谉 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚

搂 The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Eliezer further said: They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, but the Rabbis prohibit it. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Rav 岣sda said: For the verse states that God told Moses he could return to Egypt from Midian, despite having vowed to Yitro that he would not do so: 鈥淔or all the men are dead that sought your life鈥 (Exodus 4:19), and he took the vow only because it would be dangerous for him to return to Egypt. The Gemara explains the proof: But death is a new circumstance, and Moses鈥 vow was dissolved based on the men dying. Therefore, it can be understood from here that they may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 拽住讘专讬 讛谞讛讜 诪讬 诪讬讬转讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞爪讬诐 讜谞爪讘讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讚转谉 讜讗讘讬专诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what is their reason for not accepting this proof? The Gemara answers: They hold: These people who were seeking Moses鈥 life, had they indeed died? But Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Wherever it is stated in the Torah the term striving (Exodus 2:13), in reference to the men who slandered Moses, or standing (Exodus 5:20), in reference to those who complained against Moses and Aaron, they are none other than Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were alive during the rebellion of Korah, which occurred years later, so they could not have been dead when God instructed Moses to return to Egypt. Rather, Reish Lakish said: They did not literally die, but the verse means that they lost their property and their status in the community, which meant their opinions were no longer granted credibility, and consequently, Moses could safely return to Egypt. Such a turn of events is not considered to be a new circumstance.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讞砖讜讘 讻诪转 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讛 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪转讛 讗谞讻讬 讜转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 诪转 注谞讬 讜诪爪讜专注 讜住讜诪讗 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 注谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 谞讗 转讛讬 讻诪转 讜住讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讞砖讻讬诐 讛讜砖讬讘谞讬 讻诪转讬 注讜诇诐 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛讘讛 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪转讛 讗谞讻讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Any person who does not have children is considered like a dead person. The source is as is stated in the words Rachel said to Jacob: 鈥淕ive me children, or else I am dead鈥 (Genesis 30:1). And it was taught in a baraita: Four are considered as if they were dead: A pauper, and a leper, and a blind person, and one who has no children. A pauper, as it is written: 鈥淔or all the men are dead鈥 (Exodus 4:19). As explained above, they were not actually dead but had descended into poverty, and yet they were considered dead. A leper, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses with regard to Miriam鈥檚 leprosy: 鈥淟et her not, I pray, be as one dead鈥 (Numbers 12:12). And a blind person, as it is written: 鈥淗e has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead鈥 (Lamentations 3:6). And one who has no children, as it is written: 鈥淕ive me children, or else I am dead鈥 (Genesis 30:1).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 64

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: When halakhic authorities are approached with regard to the dissolution of a vow, they may broach dissolution with a person who took a vow by raising the issue of how taking the vow ultimately degraded the honor of his father and mother, asking him the following: Had you known that your parents would experience public shame due to your lax attitude toward your vow, would you still have taken the vow? But the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and prohibit broaching dissolution of a vow with this particular question.

讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注讚 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讬驻转讞讜 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚讘专 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜

To support the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Tzadok said: Instead of broaching dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother, let them broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of the Omnipresent. They should point out that a vow taken in the name of God lessens the honor of God, so they could ask him: If you had known that your vow would diminish the honor of God, would you have taken your vow? And if so, if this is a valid method of broaching dissolution, there are no vows. Nevertheless, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother, as in this case the extenuation is connected to this particular vow.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞注砖讛 住讜驻专 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 谞注砖讛 住讜驻专 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讗转 讘谞讜 讘拽专讜讘 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, but the Rabbis prohibit it. How might they broach dissolution by asking about a new situation? If one said: It is forbidden to me like an offering [konam] that I will therefore not derive benefit from so-and-so, and that person later became a scribe [sofer], and the one who took the vow now requires his services, or if the one forbidden by the vow was marrying off his son and prepared a feast for all the residents of his town, and the one that had taken the vow said: Had I known that he would become a scribe, or that he would be marrying off his son in the near future, I would not have vowed.

拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜谞注砖讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

The mishna cites another example of a new situation. If one said: Entering this house is konam for me, and that house became a synagogue, and he said: Had I known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed, in this and all such cases Rabbi Eliezer permits the halakhic authority to use this as a basis for the dissolution of the vow, and the Rabbis prohibit it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞讬转专讬谉 讬驻讛

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the statement made by Rabbi Tzadok. What does: If so, there are no vows, mean? Abaye said: It means: If so, vows are not dissolved properly. The one who took the vow might say he regrets doing so only because he is not willing to publicly state that he would have taken his vow despite knowing that it diminishes the honor of God. He may not actually regret having taken the vow, and this will lead to the improper dissolution of the vow.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇讞讻诐

And Rava said: It means: If so, there are no requests for the dissolution of vows to a halakhic authority. Since this type of extenuation applies to all vows, people will therefore assume that their vows are automatically dissolved, and will not take the required steps to dissolve them.

转谞谉 讜诪讜讚讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚讘专 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖驻讜转讞讬诐 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞讬转专讬谉 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞爪祝 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讞爪祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara analyzes the dispute between Abaye and Rava: We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother. Granted, according to Abaye, who said: If so, vows are not dissolved properly, here, since he was impudent toward him by stating a vow that subjects his parent to a prohibition, he was impudent toward him and has demonstrated that he is not concerned for their honor. In such a case, there is no concern that he would pretend to regret his vow due to his parents鈥 honor. This is why the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讛讻讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讜转讞讬谉 讗诪专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 谞讚专讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讛讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讞讻诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻讜转讞讬谉

But according to Rava, who said: If so, there are no requests for dissolution made to a halakhic authority, here, in the case of one whose vow involves his parents, why may they broach dissolution in this way? Why is there not a concern that people will assume that this dissolves all vows automatically? The Gemara answers: The Sages say in response: Since it is not sufficient and applicable for all vows not to request dissolution from a halakhic authority, because the Rabbis maintain that in general, the honor of one鈥檚 parents cannot be used to broach dissolution, here too, they may broach dissolution by invoking the honor of a parent. There is no concern that this may lead one to think that vows are dissolved automatically, as this extenuation applies only to this particular vow.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬转讛 讚谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 诪讻讗谉 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚

搂 The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Eliezer further said: They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, but the Rabbis prohibit it. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Rav 岣sda said: For the verse states that God told Moses he could return to Egypt from Midian, despite having vowed to Yitro that he would not do so: 鈥淔or all the men are dead that sought your life鈥 (Exodus 4:19), and he took the vow only because it would be dangerous for him to return to Egypt. The Gemara explains the proof: But death is a new circumstance, and Moses鈥 vow was dissolved based on the men dying. Therefore, it can be understood from here that they may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 拽住讘专讬 讛谞讛讜 诪讬 诪讬讬转讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞爪讬诐 讜谞爪讘讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讚转谉 讜讗讘讬专诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what is their reason for not accepting this proof? The Gemara answers: They hold: These people who were seeking Moses鈥 life, had they indeed died? But Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Wherever it is stated in the Torah the term striving (Exodus 2:13), in reference to the men who slandered Moses, or standing (Exodus 5:20), in reference to those who complained against Moses and Aaron, they are none other than Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were alive during the rebellion of Korah, which occurred years later, so they could not have been dead when God instructed Moses to return to Egypt. Rather, Reish Lakish said: They did not literally die, but the verse means that they lost their property and their status in the community, which meant their opinions were no longer granted credibility, and consequently, Moses could safely return to Egypt. Such a turn of events is not considered to be a new circumstance.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讞砖讜讘 讻诪转 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讛 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪转讛 讗谞讻讬 讜转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 诪转 注谞讬 讜诪爪讜专注 讜住讜诪讗 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 注谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 谞讗 转讛讬 讻诪转 讜住讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讞砖讻讬诐 讛讜砖讬讘谞讬 讻诪转讬 注讜诇诐 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛讘讛 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪转讛 讗谞讻讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Any person who does not have children is considered like a dead person. The source is as is stated in the words Rachel said to Jacob: 鈥淕ive me children, or else I am dead鈥 (Genesis 30:1). And it was taught in a baraita: Four are considered as if they were dead: A pauper, and a leper, and a blind person, and one who has no children. A pauper, as it is written: 鈥淔or all the men are dead鈥 (Exodus 4:19). As explained above, they were not actually dead but had descended into poverty, and yet they were considered dead. A leper, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses with regard to Miriam鈥檚 leprosy: 鈥淟et her not, I pray, be as one dead鈥 (Numbers 12:12). And a blind person, as it is written: 鈥淗e has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead鈥 (Lamentations 3:6). And one who has no children, as it is written: 鈥淕ive me children, or else I am dead鈥 (Genesis 30:1).

Scroll To Top